This deputy didn’t shoot the “unarmed” suspect, and is now clinging to life. His two kids may not get their father back. Now, should we speculate what the media would have reported if the deputy shot the suspect to save his own life, before he was critically injured?

People are murdered by “unarmed” suspects all the time. According to the FBI, in 2012, 678 people were murdered with the only “weapon” used being listed as “hands, fists, feet.” In fact, every year for the last five years the number of people murdered by “hands, fists, feet” has been higher than the number of people murdered by rifles and shotguns combined. So statistically, a citizen is more likely to be murdered by an “unarmed” person than a person armed with a long gun.

And even when a suspect is “unarmed,” there is always at least one gun present in a police encounter – the officer’s. According to the FBI, at least 43 officers have been killed in the last ten years by their own weapons. As a police officer, you simply cannot risk your life on the unlikely assumption that someone trying to take your weapon is only doing so to steal it.

In other words, police shoot “unarmed” suspects for the same reason they shoot “armed” suspects – because the suspect is acting in a manner which poses an immediate threat to someone’s life.

Funny how the people screaming “murder” over the Ferguson incident are many of the same ones telling us they need to ban various types of rifles and shotguns in order to reduce crime and “protect” law enforcement officers.

6 Comments

And while we’re on the topic of Ferguson, let’s take a look at the quality of the “journalism” coming out of the city. These are supposed to be the people who the rest of us rely on to give us accurate and timely information. No wonder people are rioting….

Man is operationally defined as a tool maker and user. Tools are created to assist in accomplishing a task or goal. Guns are indeed tools, employed as a means to an end. Your perspective, whether it be subjective or objective, will determine if the “End Justifies The Means”, when a firearm is used to either prevent or put a halt to a violent criminal act. I believe in the natural, innate, instinctive sense of self preservation that also extends to protecting family, friends, and personal property, by any means necessary and available, including the defensive use of firearms. California is in dire need of a constitutionally guaranteed “Castle Law” and a “Stand Your Ground Law”, where the wolves learn by justified consequences to respect other persons and property rights. That is why California needs as many trained CCW holders, as there are qualified individuals who want one, because our law abiding citizens have been at a legislated personal defense disadvantage for far too long. As Samuel Colt once said: … the gun is a great “EQUALIZER” of persons… Otherwise, they might as well outlaw all tools that perform like sticks and stones, because they can’t legislate and force a change in human nature. Unfortunately, Cain’s aberration survives and thrives today.

Following this logic, any drunk throwing a punch should be shot by officers because a punch threatens people’s lives. Police are trained to restrain to protect the population, not take down anyone who is “threatening.”

Jon, you are only looking at a tiny part of the picture, and it’s not that simple. Police train to stop threats of death or great bodily harm to themselves or a third person. A number of factors can come into play. For example, an officer is in a physical confrontation with someone. Is the suspect larger or smaller than the officer? Older or younger? Is the suspect someone with advanced skills in fighting such as MMA or boxing? Look into actual use of force. You’ll find that your observation is quite limited in comparison to reality.

Jon, I understand how that may look to someone with no experience or training in this topic, but it’s not as simple as you suggest. There are a lot of factors at play in these kinds of cases – all which have been laid out by the Supreme Court in a couple of cases – most notable Graham v Connor and Tennessee v Garner.

I’ve been punched a number of times on duty and have never considered it a situation where I had to use lethal force. However, a number of factors that may come into play include:

-Officer subject factors. This includes the size and skill of the officer and suspect. In this case, the suspect was 604 300 lbs, much larger than the officer. You can imagine a situation where a small female officer could be fighting a much larger suspect. Officer do receive defensive tactics training, but it’s not as in-depth as you might think. A suspect could very well be much better trained at hand to hand combat – for instance an MMA fighter could pose a significant threat of death or great bodily injury while “unarmed.”

-Number of suspects and number of officers. In this case, it sounds like there were potentially two robbery suspects on scene, and one officer. Attempting to control multiple suspects is much more difficult, regardless of their size.

-The nature of the offense. Allegedly, the officer at first simply warned the suspects to stop walking in the road, which he addressed in a very low-level fashion (speaking with them through the window of his squad). He then apparently learned that the suspects may have been involved in a robbery. That is a violent felony, and therefore the courts have recognized those suspects likely pose a greater threat to police.

-Sudden or unprovoked attack. The element of surprise can put an officer at a great disadvantage. In this case, allegedly, the suspect attacked the officer before he could even get out of his car.

-Whether the suspect was resisting arrest or actively fleeing or fighting.

-Injuries sustained during the altercation – (again going back to officer/subject factors). In this case, the officer allegedly sustained a broken orbital during the initial attack on him. Besides being extremely painful, this could significantly affect his vision, his balance and other functions. If the officer is becoming so tired from fighting so long, he may be justified in escalating his level of force to end the fight.

So, while I can see how you may draw the conclusion that an officer could shoot “any drunk that throws a punch,” your logic does not reflect reality. In the end, use of force (whether by a cop or civilian) is judged based on the “reasonable person standard.” In other words, given the totality of the circumstances, would a “reasonable person,” knowing what the officer knew at the time, would have felt that his or another innocent life was in immediate danger of death or great bodily injury?

A broken orbital in and of itself is likely going to be considered “great bodily injury.” The facts of this case, as they have been presented so far do not show any indication the officer acted outside the parameters of the law or his department policy. Now, if other facts emerge suggesting otherwise, then by all means the officer should be held accountable and prosecuted if merited. Unfortunately however, a number of politicians and political figures have gotten themselves involved prematurely while only knowing that the officer was white, and the suspect was black and “unarmed.” They began making judgements before they knew any of the facts – which has had the tragic effect of flaming the fire.

The Justice Department investigates cases where they believe a person’s civil rights were intentionally violated. With such a short time before they became involved – there is no way they could have had any reason to believe this officer acted based on a desire to deprive the suspect of his life or liberty based on his race. While they could become involved further down the road, after the local investigation is well underway, the simple truth is the DOJ “jumped the gun” prematurely and has now created an even bigger mess than if the locals/state were left to deal with it like every other officer-involved shooting investigation that occurs around the country on a daily basis. Due process is a critical, fundamental human right that we respect in this country, and in this case, a number of people have been trampling on it for attention and political gain.